r/politics • u/sweatycat New York • 1d ago

California to Negotiate Trade With Other Countries to Bypass Trump Tariffs

https://www.newsweek.com/california-newsom-trade-trump-tariffs-2055414
92.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

6.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

641

u/jeebus87 1d ago

What we are witnessing is a striking contradiction in American governance. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the message was clear: let the states decide. The federal government, through the Court’s ruling, signaled that the people of each state should determine their own course on some of the most consequential issues of our time. That was the rationale, state autonomy, local control, democratic self-determination.

Now, California seeks to do just that. Faced with sweeping tariffs that threaten the livelihood of its farmers and manufacturers, the state is exploring ways to shield its economy. But if the federal government refuses to allow it, or worse, actively blocks those efforts, then we are left with a troubling inconsistency.

The principle of states' rights cannot be a one-way street. It cannot apply to some issues and not others, depending on the politics of the moment. If states are trusted to regulate matters of life and liberty, they ought to be trusted to protect their workers and industries. To deny that now is not only inconsistent, it is hypocritical.

1

u/PlatonicTroglodyte Virginia 1d ago

Ok I’m not unsympathetic to the overall argument, but cherry picking vibes from Dobbs and acting like something entirely unrelated is constitutional per Dobbs is ridiculous lol.

16

u/jeebus87 1d ago

Well now, I appreciate your thoughtful pushback. And you're right to draw a line between what the Dobbs decision technically says and how its logic is used beyond the context of reproductive rights. Dobbs, at its core, did not confer general permission for states to chart their own path on every issue. It simply held that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion, and thus returned that matter to the states.

But here is the rub. When the highest court in the land tells the American people that certain fundamental questions should be decided not by federal fiat but by the people and their representatives in each state, it sends a broader message about where authority resides. That message, whether intended or not, does not exist in a vacuum. It creates an expectation, one that says local governance matters, that the will of a state’s electorate carries weight, even when it rubs against federal preference.

So, while Dobbs may not be precedent for economic autonomy or international trade policy, the philosophy that undergirds it, about the rightful locus of decision-making, absolutely reverberates into these debates. That is not cherry picking. That is recognizing the intellectual consequences of our jurisprudence. And that, my friend, is the way it is.

0

u/Dracious 1d ago

Couldn't the same argument have been made at any time in US history though? There have always been certain laws/decisions that can be made at the State level, and some that are made at the Federal level. Just because the state can decide on some things doesn't inherently mean that it can decide on everything?

The Dobbs decision changed a single topic from Federal to State, why would that suddenly mean that is precedent for States to do anything? Wouldnt the original decision to make abortion a federal issue in the past also have meant that the states have no rights at all by that logic?

I guess I just don't understand your 'all or nothing' sort of argument when the US pre and post Dobbs have had all sorts of important things split into federal and state laws, and things moving from one to the other isn't an event unique to Dobbs.

3

u/jeebus87 1d ago

You are correct that the Constitution has long drawn lines between federal and state authority. But the Dobbs decision was not just another adjustment along that line. It marked a profound shift. For nearly half a century, the right to abortion was understood as a constitutionally protected liberty, upheld by the highest court in the land. With Dobbs, that right was withdrawn, not by legislation, but by judicial declaration. And in doing so, the Court did more than return one issue to the states, it signaled that long-standing federal protections, even those deeply woven into the fabric of modern American life, could be stripped away if not firmly grounded in historical tradition. That does not merely tinker with the balance of power. It redraws the map. And that, in the eyes of many, opened a door that will not easily be closed.